I really do not see what a watch can give me aside from being a piece of mechanical jewelry.

That's a really disappointing vision. If they do it, it'll be a proxy for Siri. Easy way to do reminders, look at reminders, see who's calling you or texting you, the possibilities and market are there. I almost went into it, but I think Apple's going to squash any startup. They'll have API hooks for all this, and they might not offer it to the rest of us.

I'll copy one of my previous posts on this discussion from a few months back:

There are already rumors of an Apple Smartwatch, but I'm not sure I buy it quite yet. Also, Intel as a partner doesn't really make sense, as BT isn't their primary focus. Bluetooth 4.0LE is still nascent, and I think they'll wait a little bit longer before they pull this off. The restrictions in the API really mean only they can, though they've relaxed it quite a bit (see: Citizen Proximity).

I can't find the link, but one of Appls former engineers (with no personal knowledge of the project) posited that the iWatch's key features would be NFC and presence, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Who wants to dig their phone out of their pocket and slide it across the turnstile at the metro when you can just swipe your wrist? Why log into a computer when your iWatch (which has biometricly identified you) can simply vouch for your identity. You could even do two factor authentication. The watch says to the computer, "this is Joe - confirm his identity by facial recognition: reference available at secure iCloud server X."

Siri doesn't seem likely. The battery needed for audio out and mic would be huge. Anything other than very basic notifications is probably out as well: video, animations, fageddaboutit.

I see the iWatch as a cheap accessory to Passbook, rather than an iPhone/iPod replacement.

Now biometrics is an interesting area. The current crop are pretty shit. But mainly it's because the sensors themselves are battery gobbling. If Apple could find a way to build a heart rate monitor into a watch with long battery life and open APIs to transmit that data to an iPhone they could own that market overnight.

I can't find the link, but one of Appls former engineers (with no personal knowledge of the project) posited that the iWatch's key features would be NFC and presence, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Who wants to dig their phone out of their pocket and slide it across the turnstile at the metro when you can just swipe your wrist? Why log into a computer when your iWatch (which has biometricly identified you) can simply vouch for your identity. You could even do two factor authentication. The watch says to the computer, "this is Joe - confirm his identity by facial recognition: reference available at secure iCloud server X."

Siri doesn't seem likely. The battery needed for audio out and mic would be huge. Anything other than very basic notifications is probably out as well: video, animations, fageddaboutit.

I see the iWatch as a cheap accessory to Passbook, rather than an iPhone/iPod replacement.

Now biometrics is an interesting area. The current crop are pretty shit. But mainly it's because the sensors themselves are battery gobbling. If Apple could find a way to build a heart rate monitor into a watch with long battery life and open APIs to transmit that data to an iPhone they could own that market overnight.

That would be Tog. If I recall correctly, he used to be the human interfaces guy years ago... the real deal.

Haters, stop. We know there's a market for aftermarket nano shuffle iPod wristwatch cases. We know there are 3 imperfect players in fitness trackers (what if best of fitbit, up, and fuel band were combined in one?).

They have more than enough to start exploring a product with a goal of a solid thing in a couple/few years time! I was looking for a retro flip phone, started googling RAZRs, and found something I forgot--there was previously a small market for upscale rolexy cell phones. iPhone made that market largely irrelevant very quickly...most rich folks and celebrities are proud to sport an iPhone. There are bling cases and aftermarket bling mods, but most folks are ok with getting a new iPhone every single year if wealthy.

So I'm curious to see what they do.

One thing that comes to mind is distributing ones digital identification across two or more devices, so losing your phone doesn't mean your NFC or passbook wallet isn't completely compromised...

That would be Tog. If I recall correctly, he used to be the human interfaces guy years ago... the real deal.His article: http://asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/It's a very interesting article, and I must say I would buy an iWatch for the NFC authentication feature alone

This is the same Apple that just released a half-length Lightning cable, at the same price as the full-length cable, without a hint of irony. So I honestly don't think $800 for some sort of biometric-iPhone-inspired-Siri-Super-Watch is beyond their pricing hubris.

I don't think they would sell very many at that price, but, that hasn't stopped them before.

This is the same Apple that just released a half-length Lightning cable, at the same price as the full-length cable, without a hint of irony. So I honestly don't think $800 for some sort of biometric-iPhone-inspired-Siri-Super-Watch is beyond their pricing hubris.

I don't think they would sell very many at that price, but, that hasn't stopped them before.

Granted, but this is also the same Apple that shocked everyone by selling the original iPad starting at $499 when everyone expected $999.

(Of course even $329 seems dear now since everyone else seems to be running a tablet charity, but that's an entirely different topic...)

unless the cable's price isn't really dictated almost entirely by its electronics, then the cable length probably doesn't significantly affect the price--it'd be worse if they would/could cut the price in half for a half length cable. That's more monster/bestbuy, and less monopricey. I'm sure there is a healthy mark-up though.

one of the problems I see with current watch-like devices is that they are non-conservative styles (not metal, bright plastic)...jawbone probably could vastly increase their profits if they had a one-size-fits-all core device and sold "skins" for it. even metal skins.

regardless, I'm very excited to see what google (glasses) and apple (watches) have planned. maybe microsoft will come up with "smart" apparel too...

I still wear a watch because I'm old (40's) and feel nostalgic towards these amazing geared mechanical devices that predated digital tech.

About 30% of my co-workers wear watches, and this in Silicon Valley. Mostly quartz. It's a combination useful/jewelry thing.

I could see the smart watches fueling a 'second wave' like the digital revolution in the 70's, but displacing all other watches? Nah. People wear different types for different reasons, and they'll never get back to what it was when clocks were not ever-present and always accurate to a few seconds.

I could see the smart watches fueling a 'second wave' like the digital revolution in the 70's, but displacing all other watches? Nah. People wear different types for different reasons

This is where the Nike Fuelband scores, as it can be a watch, and it looks like jewelry, but it has other, sophisticated functionality that persuades someone to wear it even if they have a watch.

And I think this is why Apple would be wrong to come out with an "iWatch" per se, and instead should release a wearable Nano (cases for wrist, forearm) that can communicate with an iPhone and pass along info and limited commands.

Last summer Apple apparently bought out the company making the Bluetooth-to-Android-tethered, RSS-newsfeed, timer/weather/stopwatch color touchscreen Wimm One Smartwatch (whose developer preview sold for $200), and one of its former employees now lists himself on LinkedIn as being "OS Wireless Software Engineer (Prototypes) at Apple."

So maybe we're going back to last-gen's square Nano size for the iWatch?

Last summer Apple apparently bought out the company making the Bluetooth-to-Android-tethered, RSS-newsfeed, timer/weather/stopwatch color touchscreen Wimm One Smartwatch (whose developer preview sold for $200), and one of its former employees now lists himself on LinkedIn as being "OS Wireless Software Engineer (Prototypes) at Apple."

So maybe we're going back to last-gen's square Nano size for the iWatch?

I'm thinking Apple bought that company for the engineering talent and any patents it may have, without the intention of actually making a Nano-sized watch. Because no one (except for those who enjoy wearing calculator watches) is going to want to walk around with something of that size on their wrists.

EDIT to add: If Apple does release something wearable around a wrist, it'll resemble a Livestrong bracelet more than a Nano watch.

Last summer Apple apparently bought out the company making the Bluetooth-to-Android-tethered, RSS-newsfeed, timer/weather/stopwatch color touchscreen Wimm One Smartwatch (whose developer preview sold for $200), and one of its former employees now lists himself on LinkedIn as being "OS Wireless Software Engineer (Prototypes) at Apple."

Spoiler: show

So maybe we're going back to last-gen's square Nano size for the iWatch?

You know, I commented on that in the Samsung watch article, but I didn't know who they went to. Appreciate the info on where they went. The WIMM One was awkward, clunky, and a short battery life, but very interesting.

If Apple does release something wearable around a wrist, it'll resemble a Livestrong bracelet more than a Nano watch.

It seems to me that in order to offer a superior experience Apple will need to connect the device via Bluetooth 4.0 to an iPhone or iPod Touch and, using touchscreen technology would necessarily need more screen space than you'd find on a bracelet like the Nike Fuelband. And it's pretty reasonable to expect a touchscreen on it too, yes? I think most men would be turned off by wearing a chunky bracelet, and I'm pretty sure Apple would want a reasonable-sized screen on it, so I doubt a bracelet would be the rumored device.

On the other hand the screen size limitations of 1.3"-1.5" watch can be seen in products like Sony's Smartwatch, Motorola's ACTV and the Metawatch, which are reported to be fiddly to operate, have uncomfortably tiny text, limited apps, and limited touch sensitivity/usability. There are ways around some of these issues (like a rotating bezel to make selections, as seen in some new small cameras) but the small screen size is possibly too burdensome of a limitation for Apple to consider going back to the 6th-gen Nano in screen size, unless Apple decides that the iWatch will necessarily have more limited functionality than the (bad) functionality of current Android-compatible devices. But that's generally not the way Apple rolls.

The acquisition of Wimm and it's employees suggests to me that a small touch-sensitive Bluetooth device is plausible, and depending on battery life issues being a Siri pass-along is possible. Aside from that who knows. Maybe the screen is Wimm/old_Nano small but the band is contextually touch sensitive. I dunno'.

They have more than enough to start exploring a product with a goal of a solid thing in a couple/few years time! I was looking for a retro flip phone, started googling RAZRs, and found something I forgot--there was previously a small market for upscale rolexy cell phones. iPhone made that market largely irrelevant very quickly...most rich folks and celebrities are proud to sport an iPhone. There are bling cases and aftermarket bling mods, but most folks are ok with getting a new iPhone every single year if wealthy.

That market never went away. Those products are produced primarily for the Russian and Asian markets i.e. cultures that admire gaudy bling.

Apple should be arguably migrating their devices towards bigger screens, not smaller ones (except in the case of the iPad Mini).

That and people have become used to looking at the screens on their phones all the time. It's not like they keep the phones in a pocket or purse, out of sight. A lot of people carry them around and are always leaving them within view, as when they sit down to have a meal

So this watch idea won't fly.

Only people with money who buy watches seem to be those who want them as jewelry or status symbols.

Very true, been a decade since I wore a watch. I think glasses are the more likely market, half-the-planet wears glasses everyday.

You've got to be joking. Glasses? Anyone with the scratch gets contacts, or increasingly laser surgery. In my circle of friends I can count the number of people on the legacy "glasses platform" on one hand, and all of them have high fashion glasses and wouldn't be caught dead wearing Google Glasses. This is one of those tech wet dreams that is so disconnected from the way people live its not even funny. After having had laser surgery it will be a cold day in hell when I intentionally wear glasses except for sunnies.

I also think its part of a larger tech myopia (heh) about how much people value "at-a-glance". Win8 is built around the concept that at-a-glance is the be all and end all. All the focus on widgets, and notifications ditto. But most people don't live that way. They don't need or want that volume of information at their fingertips.

When you look at iOS, one of the complaints it gets is that there isn't enough at-a-glance info. But I actually think that in some ways that's a good think. It doesn't clutter up its interface with a ton of "sound bite length" information that just isn't useful.

similarly, I doubt that the raisin d'être of the iWatch will be to give you a ton of widgets or always on info. It will be have one use- make it so you have to take your phone out of your pocket less often.

Because this hypothetical iWatch I described would allow things that would be impossible even with iPhone in hand or on the table. Like give access to wrist mounted sensors to enable a whole new ecosystem of activity, sleep, life tracking apps on iPhone. Like allow Siri to be used without the intermediate step of putting your phone up in front of your face. Like unobtrusively allowing email call and sms triage.

Siri and App Store would be greatly enhanced by such a product and it would help to build even greater ecosystem lock in for apples real cash cow, iPhone.

Isn't wearing glasses without prescription lenses in them a thing these days?

I can see sunglasses with HUD becoming popular if the glasses look like any other sunglasses, that is light and thin. Like in Terminator 1, he wore those trendy sunglasses that had the HUD. Of course it'll take a long time to miniaturize the electronics and have a power source to fit in a Oakley type of form factor.

Well, if they go down this road there are some cool ideas out there. I'm not sure Apple will call it a watch, but it will be something similar to this, except not so garish. Without the stupid keyboard, etc. Whatever it is, it will have to include biometric features, because at the moment it's the one thing that has made traction in the market - like the Nike Fuel band. People seem to be putting up with wearing these for the biometric features.

Could you imagine if the iWatch was actually a very clever name for an up and coming Apple TV set

Brilliant!

It's times like these that I wish we could up vote comments in the forums like the front page stories...

Thanks

ghub005 wrote:

I think that boat has already sailed.Most modern TVs already come with USB ports, ethernet streaming, support for YouTube & Netflix etc.

sleepcountry wrote:

...But sort of suck at it, as most mp3 players that came before the iPod could play music, but still kinda sucked. The interface on every TV I've seen with these "smart" features is slow and ugly.

But I have to admit that I still have no idea how Apple could make a compelling case for a TV even if they did wrap a slick UI into the package...

I see where you're coming from ghub. My TV has a USB port and Netflix built into it, but in my household I am the only person who knows how to actually use either of those two things. Playing files from a USB took me on 4 trips to Google to figure out how to make the damn thing mount, and finding out which codecs the thing supported was even more difficult. As for Netflix on this TV, when I press the Netflix button on the remote I have time to walk to the shop, buy drinks and popcorn, and walk back before it's actually ready to go. This TV is connected by gigabit ethernet. I'd rather just change inputs over to the Apple TV I have plugged in and skip all the messing around. There's a huge opportunity for Apple here, if they can get the content licensing sorted out and if someone doesn't eat their lunch first!

The dream iWatch/Apple TV thing wouldn't be an actual TV I would say, just a box. Add good streaming content, a UI that doesn't send me to Google for help, and some kind of App Store with an iDevice as a controller and you're onto something good

This is all getting away from the whole iWatch/wearable computing topic though!